December 8, 2010

Now, Rush Limbaugh was talking about how "the media is just beside itself over how pathetic [Obama's] performance was yesterday" in the news conference about the tax compromise. And Rush is saying that Obama "knows full well that he had a meltdown yesterday."

Here's the video:

Rush says he can tell that Obama...

... has been festering, this has been effervescing inside him, that he's unappreciated, that he did something nobody else has done, and they wanted it for a hundred years, and by golly he got it. He didn't get everything he wanted, he got 99%, and they don't appreciate me,...

So he's essentially telling them, look, I gotta back off on some of this stuff if we're to get anything done. And that infuriated 'em even more because the question was, "Where you gonna go to the mat, what are your core values?" And he withered. He caved. And that made them even angrier. I know it's hard to comprehend. But these people on the left, they are truly enraged. It is a lifestyle. They are never happy. I looked at the comments on the Daily Kos website, they are hilarious. But they're real. And it went on for ten pages. I mean they are just fit to be tied because Obama is not what they thought he was....

I must say... I watched that video clip earlier today, and I liked the Obama I saw there. You could say he's beaten down, but there's fire there. It's the fire of pragmatism. I see a sensible and strong man. I never believed in Obama the Messiah, and I fretted about the signs that he was a left-wing ideologue. But when it came down to a decision between Obama and McCain, in the midst of a terrible economic crisis, I put my trust in Obama. I said:

I worry about what awful innovations the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama.

I thought that Obama would have some independence from the Democrats in Congress and that he'd use his common sense and pragmatism to work out some solutions. The more he departs from left-wing ideology and struggles to get to good solutions, the more I like him.

When I watch that video, I don't see a melt-down at all. I see Obama coming into his own at last. I see the Obama I voted for.

I heard the presser. It was a melt-down. Obama made everyone hate him. He told his left-wing base that they were fools to be so ideological. He told the conservatives they were evil jerks to hold the American people hostage. He told centrists that he couldn't talk without being angry.

Dream on, Ann. It is all about the optics. What you see in that video is a hapless man who told everybody he could not win, not a pragmatist unless it is a euphemism for a loser. He should have started this months ago and not now in Dec when he is caught between a rock and a hard place and out lashing at everybody. Your pragmatist lied and hoodwinked on the campaign trail.. Byron York has a list of events in 2008 where he promised he would roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

They (both sides of the aisle) will make him cry before this is all over -- that is what I saw in that press conference.

Yes, Obama talks a good game of compromise here as if he is a pragmatic who maturely wants to get more of what he wants. That is what has me worried...what he wants is for our energy industry to be destroyed and he will tell any lie from Global CO2 poisoning to windmill nonsense to get that done. So he is either a total ideological fool, or he is another two bit evil actor playing any "Brave" role we will watch him play as an act like a President while he secretly rigs the USA to implode at any moment? I still see his goal as mine and my children's children's destruction, poverty and death like Chavez and Castro have lead their country's prisoners into so bravely

Ann, you should watch this clip from the press conference. Obama is highlighting his failure and you call that pragmatism. The man can't even spin it to help himself or his party. And we are talking about Bush's tax cut here (lefties hate Bush).

Now Obama's telling liberals that if they kill the tax cut extension that he campaigned against, it could "jolt the nation back into recession". Too funny. It's like Grover Norquist is programming his teleprompter or something.

I also would like to have an inkling just what Crack is talking about. But thanks Ann for letting me know it's safe to test the waters and listen to a president again. It's been a while. Ever since just before Election Day, I sorta tuned out. I get exicted by the build up. I voted for Obama in the primary, not the general. And no matter who wins presidential elections, after nearly every election, I zone out for at least a year and a half. Having heard snippets of Obama here and there (and turning it off pretty fast), I know I was doing the right thing. But in that clip, he seemed like the old Obama, bolder and more self assured. Not spouting cliches, not tired-sounding, and not talking as if from behind a wall. He even looked younger. He looked good.

He's a whiny baby who never has been and never will be Presidential timber. A Muslim (oops, I didn't mean that) Jimmy Carter, if you will.

He may have lucked into making the right economic moves late (though I have doubts it's enough), but that hasn't changed his stripes.

Besides, with basically everyone in the country, including centrists, and just-left-of-center Democrats, telling him he must settle tax policy and stimulate the economy in a meaningful way, what else can he do? Ultimately, he's a politician who craves re-election.

The fact that he's still got some more of his far-Left agenda to enact is a side benefit of his staying relevant.

He's a left-wing ideologue. He didn't wipe away Bill Ayers and Jerry Wright and Van Jones with one aquiescence on taxes.

You voted for a disingenuous, deceitful, divisive, hate-spewing, unpresidential, resentful, petulant, obnoxious punk? Well, you got one. And not just in this instance. I don't know that I have ever seen a time when President I Won is not giving the middle finger to someone.

A big problem though is that libs are so used to treating others like sh*t that they don't even notice Obama doing it.

"I see the Obama I voted for."---Yikes. I thought you had moved on from that colossal mistake. Just looking for some redemption, huh Ann? Look, Obama is still the bumbling, half-wit, who somehow convinced some smart people to vote for him despite his complete lack of any military, executive, diplomatic, or private sector experience. They ignored his radical Marxist background and the fact that one of his mentors was a neo-segregationist, racist, anti-Semite. Conservatives, like you voted for this guy because you thought he was pretty and would be so bipartisan and post-racial and would bring the country together under the banner of change or something. Ann, you were wrong and you know it. Voting for this clown over McCain was an enormous mistake and you should be (and I think are) embarrassed by it. Obama is a disaster for this country and you contributed to that disaster. Own up to it and move on. Don't try to make excuses now ("see, he really is sort of conservative. I wasn't a total idiot for voting for him along with my law school friends who, at least for a little while, started to like me.") You'll just embarrass yourself even more.

Back in September, Boehner offered to accept the tax cut for the rich recension if it was cut at 1 million, not 250K.Obama, the alleged "pragmatist" said no.On his way to a November debacle, he refused to consider fixing flaws in Obamacare EVERYONE said exist. Or deal with failed economic stimulus.

But was passionate about Start, The Dream Act, Suing Arizona, and pushing repeal of DADT. After the election, "pragmatic" Obama's 1st move was to ban oil exploration off the East and West Coast, off the Eastern Part of the Gulf, off Alaska - and deep water drilling everywhere,Then he comes in and rather than end tax cuts for millionaires, was so weak after rejecting the Sept compromise he caved on everything.

Now he is back to the Dream Act, fighting states on immigration, resisting any tampering with Obamacare, and still fighting for gay activists.Oh, and standing by for his START triumph...something that Americans don't even have on their 15 most critical problems lists in polls.

However, Mr. Pragmatist didn't do himself any favors by simultaneously doing a blindside stab to the Left on his tax cut cave-in, then comparing Republicans to hostage-taking terrorists.

He's only a pragmatist now because he has no fiddling choice. It was all, "Shut up because I won!" a year ago. Now he's faced with a new power structure in Washington and his only choices are either look impotent or compromise. He deals with Republicans the same way as his other enemies, like Iran and North Korea: Shower them with pragmatic rhetoric, indulge in compromises heavily weighted toward their interest, then turn around to his supporters and call it progress.

mike said..."I see the Obama I voted for."---Yikes. I thought you had moved on from that colossal mistake.

=================It wasn't really a hard call for independents. They saw in McCain a warhappy dimbulb who was guaranteed to be a dismal President. Backed by someone, as he was 72 with major health issues, independents believed unfit for the office.

With Obama, you had at least the hope that he could be better than the treacherous McCain, who wanted 85% of what Obama wanted - plus starting a 3rd simultaneous major war (with Iran). He could be worse, he could be much better.But McCain was certain to be a bad President.

That is why the dice got rolled. By people that generally thought both the Dems and Republicans blew it and left Hillary and Romney by the wayside.

It would be interesting to do a poll and ask if voting Obama was a mistake, or that the idea of a Grumpy Grandpaw and Palin instead was worse.

Maybe Obama and his wife have invited Uncle Bill over to dinner so that he can explain to Malia and Sasha what "triangulation" is.

Actually, I think the Obamas are probably wise to keep Uncle Bill away from the girls. You can't be too careful with a dude like that.

Seriously, though, this sets Obama up well for re-election in 2012. The voters have already had a chance to express their outrage, just like they did in 1994. Outraged expressed. But did the object of the outrage get the message? If the public sees a change in Mr. President, then they'll grant him a fresh new start... just like you seem to have done, Professor!

I hope your readers will be as generous of spirit with regard to the President as you are.

Besides his utter lack of readiness for this job, Obama has two main problems.

1.) He does not understand anything except partisanship, us v. them, scorched earth, thus he always frames this as Himself against his enemies (who happen to be his own countrymen who he is supposed to represent). you would NOT accept this kind of speech from a city councilman much less should you accept it from a PRESIDENT. he is supposed to be more of a statesman than that. But he never will be.

2.) His definition of ENEMIES does not include people who truly are a threat - the reason why his relationship with Bill Ayres mattered. from other nations who seek to kill the President's countrymen and threaten the nation's security. He's too busy fretting about FOX News and his new critics, his own base - he should be focused on hunting down and killing Julian Assange, and preventing the leaking of any more crippling documents. He won't. Because that's where his real sympathies lie.

He's no pragmatist. He was trapped here, and he couldn't really even put a good face on it. I see a petulant, bitter, trapped man who knows he is so far out of his depth that no one can cover it up anymore.

So... Ann voted for a President who would not blow another hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Titanic, which is what our economy is right now. Yayyy!

Peter Wehner at the Commentary blog--

For another, the president, in calling both Republicans (“hostage takers”) and Democrats (“sanctimonious”) names, came across as a political hack. He almost sounded like Robert Gibbs. This all cuts against what was once one of Obama’s chief virtues — his coolness and detachment, his steadiness and “first-rate temperament,” and his perceived ability to place himself above petty politics. Mr. Obama — the heir to Lincoln, we were told — now comes across as a mix between a faux populist and a temperamental elitist.

I understand the need for a president to distance himself from his party. But there are ways good and bad, careful and reckless, to do that. Provoking a full-scale uprising among one’s core constituency is never wise.

Beyond all that, Obama has decided to attack and enrage Democrats at precisely the moment he needs them to pass a deal with Republicans on tax cuts. Right now, thanks in good measure to how Obama has handled things, passage of that deal is threatened. “I’m going to argue forcefully for the nonsensicalness and the almost, you know, moral corruptness of that particular policy. … This is beyond politics,” Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday. She is speaking for many Democrats at the moment. And if Obama fails in this effort, it will be a crushing political defeat.

Because of that, it’s hard to imagine that Obama won’t eventually get the Democratic votes he needs (probably fewer than four dozen in the House). On the other hand, the Democratic anger directed toward Obama right now is difficult to overstate. They believe they, and their cause, have been betrayed by the president. And a feeling of betrayal among one’s key supporters has a way of undoing a presidency.

Well, I say he is still the left-wing knot-head he was in the Senate. I can't stand McCain, but I would vote for him over Obama any day. Of course, I would vote for (gag) Bill Clinton over Obama any day.

Eh, he's a grifter. Not a good one either. He thinks he sees the angle, and he's got all the good folk who thought electing a black guy President would wash away their distaste with our past, but in the end he's a grifter and people burned by grifters are seldom burned by the same grifter twice.

Ahh, the make believe world of the totally isolated liberal.Obama is totally lost. He has never been tasked with accomplishing anything. Never had to forge a compromise. Never been held accountable for anything. When he loses, like he did on the "compromise", all he knows is to lash out...at everybody.only a delusional liberal would see anything admirable in his behavior. "Look how pragmatic!"sheeesh

Please, he is the same America destroyer you voted for. You can rationlize all you want, but the FACT is that you, a supposed "law prof" voted for the worst thing to EVER happen to America, and you voted for an ineligible Non natural born Citizen (his father was never a citizen). Every piece of legislation or controversy that is Anti- the American people, that is what he is for. He comes down on the right side, the American side of NOTHING. Obama said that he will "stand with the Muslims" and he is. Besides that he is totally LYING in that clip. It is not a "tax cut", it is a continuation of the current tax rates. What it is, is not a TAX HIKE. "Law prof" indeed, I guess that's why we have so many lawyers that are clueless about the constitution.

but there's fire there. It's the fire of pragmatism. I see a sensible and strong man. I never believed in Obama the Messiah, and I fretted about the signs that he was a left-wing ideologue.

Ann,he is a left-wing ideologue. The "fire" you're referring to is anger because he can't punish the wealthy.

Here is a good read:He lashed "the wealthiest Americans" three times, not to mention "the wealthiest 2% of Americans," "tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires," "wealthy people" and—channeling the French revolution—"the wealthiest estates."

Now, as always, if you look at Obama selectively, pick and choose those fragments (in his words, actions, history, associations) that reflect what you want to see in him, and view those fragments isolated from the rest, you will surely find that version of Obama. He is sure to provide it. That's what the rhetoric on that O-teleprompter is crafted to achieve; that was the whole point of O's electoral strategy, and so it continues in the ongoing campaign that is his presidency. That's why the extent of MSM collusion in highlighting and eliding different aspects of O-- and any breakdown in that collaboration-- is so important (it obviously is to O himself).

If you look for it-- especially if you look for it in his *words*-- and want to find it, of course you will find evidence of O's vaunted "pragmatism" and "moderation." Especially if you want to find this to retrospectively justify your vote for him. All the more so since, after the electoral shellacking, "Obama the Moderate Pragmatist" is precisely the meme that this administration wants to project and promote-- in concert with the MSM. (Hasn't there been a resurgence of this meme in various articles lately? Uh, that should always be a clue.)

To interpret anything, whether it's a text or a person, is inevitably to be involved in the hermeneutic circle: to understand the whole you have to read the parts; but to understand the parts you have to read them in light of the whole… and so on, back and forth. When it comes to Obama, the fact that within the space of his life, his campaign, his presidency, or even of a single paragraph in a speech, or a few minutes in a press conference, a certain utterance/ pose/ persona will be entirely contradicted by another-- this is something that has to be taken into account, if you're going to offer a reading of any one utterance/ pose/ persona, and base your reading of O on that one part.

If you take O's flagrant contradictions, inconsistencies, and deceitful equivocations as in themselves evidence of his "pragmatism," then this is hardly the kind of pragmatism I would consider praiseworthy, substantive, or philosophically serious. The fact that O has continued and in some cases amplified many controversial Bush policies (which O self-righteously railed against in the past), forced by the exigencies of national security or political reality (e.g., in the case of the deal on tax cuts, an historic electoral shellacking), does not by itself add up to Obama the Pragmatist.

I mean, please. You cannot seriously propose a characterization of President Obama which brackets the passage of Obamacare, in O's own estimation the defining achievement of his presidency so far: a radically transformative legislative super-octopus, the contents & significance of which to this day remain unfathomable, forcibly imposed with scarcely any consideration of its potential implications and consequences, at a time when the country was/ is in terrible economic straits. The passage of Obamacare, which O himself asks us to judge his presidency by, was and is the OPPOSITE of "pragmatic" in practically every sense of the word. To contend, after the passage of Obamacare, that O is the consummate moderate pragmatist which he sold himself as during his campaign, the very Obama which you gullibly bought… is, I'm sorry, preposterous.

Well this is a bit delusional. If he'd waited for the new congress he would have had a MUCH worse time of it and he knew that. So is is pragmatic when you have absolutely no realistic choice whatsoever but to take the deal that's in front of you? When every single other option is worse for your "core beliefs" than what you did I would say certainly not. And by the way NO significant taxes were actually cut here especially when you project it against the new spending? It was just an avoidance of a hike.

And when you wrote "By the way, I voted against Carter in 1976 and for him in 1980." I'm curious, would you again vote that way in hindsight? If not, have you learned nothing?

What seems to bother Obama The Pragmatist is criticism. He has never seen Liberals/Progressives criticize him in any way his whole life. What he's been used to is adulation and a promotion throughout his life without question. He has finally reached the top, and his lack of actual accomplishment is showing. Somebody needs to take the rose colored glasses off.

It's not enough that he had to be brought to the table KICKING AND SCREAMING to discuss preventing a tax hike, he did it only after two years of shoving this country down the toilet economically, and pissing on/ignoring all who where trying to save it.

And now he is expecting Congress to pass the DREAM Act, the food Safety Act, and ignore the reparations of the Pigford settlement. He is a monster.

Althouse continues, understandably, to look for reasons to excuse/explain her vote for the Zero. People hate to admit they were wrong, and always look for ways to rationalize. You would think she could admit he's a con man by now.

Here is why I, as opposed to others here, give her slack on voting for this clown - John McCain - another Godawful choice, maybe worse than the Zero - we (well most of us) at least know that Zero is a leftist. McCain would be RINO impersonating a conservative. Leftist light.

Danger - like so many other "intelligent" moderate liberals, Althouse will vote for this loser again in the next election. If not him, someone just as bad. If Republicans nominate an actual conservative, she will vote the other way no matter who it is.

Actually, I think this Obama is the same thin-skinned, churlish fellow we've seen for the past couple of years, only instead of just pissing off the Republicans and independents, now he's made his base go absolutely insane. Have you seen the 11 minute Keith Olbermann clip in which he excoriates Obama? Have you seen Rachel Maddow's "reverse Gandhi" clip? If he's losing the far-left loons at PMSNBC (and their ilk elsewhere in the Left-o-sphere), who does he have left?

I liken what happened here to a drug user that gets their 'intervention' moment...the user is confronted and remanded to drug rehab as a last resort. I guess you could say that if the person agrees to go to rehab, they are 'pragmatic'.

What is also sad is that was our president up there on that podium, calling his fellow Americans 'hostage-takers'. He also said that this is 'a game'. Really? I would suggest to my fellow Americans that this is NOT a 'game', its fiddling with people's lives, and very serious business. He's simply not up to the task, its the PETER PRINCIPLE in its ultimate form!!!

Althouse continues, understandably, to look for reasons to excuse/explain her vote for the Zero. People hate to admit they were wrong, and always look for ways to rationalize. You would think she could admit he's a con man by now.

I think you should look back at my previous post.

Set-asides and quotas for women, that's Althouse's most important agenda.

If that was the most important issue to me, I'd pick Obama over McCain, too.

Ann, there is so much more that Obama is screwing up than just this one possible compromise.

He has basically stopped all new offshore drilling. He doesn't want to extract oil from shale. He still wants to stop coal-fired plants.

Instead of suggesting any legislation, he and his minions are attempting to change the meaning of free speech via net neutrality and the FCC radio licensing process.He and his bureaucratic minions want to substantially change how food is grown and distributed by regulating it from sprouting to farmer's market booth to supermarkets.

He has nationalized student loans - forgiving those who enter government service from having to repay them?

Wow, this video clip is a real Rorschach test. Personally, I thought he came off very well. Everything that came out of his mouth seemed well grounded in reality and it seems that he has come to terms with his position. Maybe the results of the election will liberate him from the nutjobs in his base.

And he did not seem to come off as angry to me. In fact, I detected a bit of a smile now and then. Basically, he was telling lib journos in the room that they had their chance, now he will be working within a new reality with a new congress and they might as well get used to a lot of compromises. The days of "screw you, we won" are over. I'm not sure that he is entirely disappointed. Compromise can look very presidential.

And on a happier note than yesterday's EE unpleasantness, I read that the Lockerbie bomber is getting ready to croak in Libya. And I suspect that we can all hold hands, sing "Kumbayah" and agree that it will be a good thing when he dies.

None of that "no man is an island" bullshit when a terrorist bites it.

Althouse is bullshitting herself and trying to bullshit us. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm glad that spoiled Anti-American socialist is finally doing something right for the country but I haven't changed my low opinion of him. We are the ones we've been waiting for, oh yeah.

"I see a sensible and strong man" .. OMG that AnnAlthouse lady has learned nothing from her 2 years fiasco, just to fall in love again .. how deep down will you roll this time? It's Obama's meltdown, yes, however, it's your Mega-meltdown .. again. Stupid woman. I hate PC, so I tell it right to your face. Stupid woman.

Having lost left, right, and center, Obama is now in self-preservation mode. He's attempting Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy, but with no understanding of how to pull it off with Clintonian finesse. Gone is the silver-tongued orator (who never actually existed).

What does an egoist do when no one pays attention to him anymore? How does a narcissist handle such a situation? If no one else loves you, is self-love enough?

I did not see petulance or anger, I saw him basically talking down to some folks that he has come to regard as idiots out of touch with his electorate. 2012 is coming soon and he knows it. The way to 4 more years in the White House is not through the NYT.

What Althouse doesn't understand (or more likely, refuses to acknowledge) is that the set-asides and quotas can't possibly co-exist with fiscal conservatism.

The set-asides and quotas are a boondoggle, an open invitation to ever expanding government, cronyism and corruption.

The set-asides and quotas destroy the concept of competitive bidding. They undermine efficiency in personnel decisions. They justify endless payoffs to favored constituencies.

So, Althouse is working at cross-purposes here. Set-asides and quotas are sacrosanct to her. She wants women first in line for everything. Because of her son, she wants equivalent favoritism for gays. Blacks don't concern her much.

She also wants to keep her money. The problem here is that Althouse refuses to acknowledge that the set-asides and quotas blow all limits off government spending.

As people have noted above, the "hostage takers...until the hostage is harmed..." rhetoric is beyond the pale. Even as a campaign speech to devoted supporters it would have been out of order. To "go there" while announcing a compromise (the thing he's always saying we need) with Republicans approaches the absurd. He's not being pragmatic, he's being petulant. And to call him un-Presidential would be a compliment. He's a full on bozo.

So, all of you commenting here are way off base. Althouse is not sentimentally attached to Obama. Althouse, as usual, is ruthlessly self-interested. (I'm not saying that's a bad thing.)

The problem is that her self-interests are contradictory:

She wants women and gays to be first in line for everything because she's a woman and her son is gay. She has no self-interest when it comes to blacks (or Asians or Mexicans for that matter), so she's not interested in their issues.

She like owning and buying things and she doesn't want the government to take her money. (I'm with her here.)

I think a lot of you are being too harsh to Ann. I give lots of credit to Obama and also to Pelosi and Reid for the TEA Party. Without them the TEA Party movement might not have ever formed. So think about it! In about one year, Obama without even realizing it (just demonstrates his genius) helped create a powerful grass-roots political movement of ordinary everyday American citizens. All HAIL OBAMA! For this we should be forever grateful.

his pragmatism is not by choice. He's been put over a barrel by republican wins. And he's awfully petty and vindictive about his pragmatism.If he's forced into it,it's not really pragmatism.And why you thought he was a pragrmatist in the first place and actually voted for him, I still don't get. What facts were you basing this on? You're actually owning that vote? Yikes.

"...never come up with anything the rest of us can work with or debate against."

Seems you've tried.

Let's review:

debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

I note that this issue is so conflicted and aggravating that nobody wants to respond to it.

But, it is the central issue.

How do you stop the growth of government and limit government spending if every constituency insists that its entitlements are sacred and cannot be touched?

You can bitch at Althouse all you want. But her viewpoint is no different than anybody else in this debate. She regards her entitlements as earned and sacrosanct. She regards set-asides and quotas for women and gays as simple justice.

And she wants the government to be fiscally responsible.

We're all making the same contradictory demands.

Easy to bitch at Althouse about it. What do you recommend as a solution?

Finally, someone dies whom everyone can agree is evil. Actually evil, and not just evil in the sense that they're on the other end of the political spectrum and did something "bad".

Exactly. Spit on the graves of the Hitlers of the world. Not the wife of some guy who had an affair. That just show no class. And that's true if it comes from the left or the right. Same thing when Ted Kennedy died. Don't be a dick because you disagreed with his policies. Same thing when Rush Limbaugh dies. Don't be a dick when you disagree with his views. Same thing when Ann Althouse dies. Don't be a dick. Everyone hates Fred Phelps, because in the middle of funerals he's calling dead people "fags". Do you want to be like Fred Phelps?

Ann still wants to believe that that magic man behind the curtain really exists.

Despite two years of Obama showing himself as being a dedicated socialist, autocrat ready to ram any ideas that he wants forcibly down the throats of the American public.....all Obama has to do is one "performance art session" and she is ready to clap her hands and believe again.

He's guarded about his true ambitions, which Dinesh D'Souza argues is guided by the north star of postcolonial theory, as his dreams came from his postcolonial dad:

"The most powerful country in the world is being governed according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s -- a polygamist who abandoned his wives, drank himself into stupors, and bounced around on two iron legs ... This philandering inebriated African socialist is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son..." (The Roots of Obama's Rage, 198).

I don't know. It made sense to me. I do think he's cagey and careful, but that down deep, the agenda is his dad's agenda. but, yes, he's pragmatic about it, which his dad wasn't.

So almost two years into this odyssey Obama does the right thing and Althouse is a twitter. Now I'm glad he made the right choice but wouldn't it be great to have a President who didn't take two years to do what's best for the county? Instead, we have a clown how only flees from his talking points when his own hide is at stake.

Don’t get me wrong. A Democrat having to eat a big helping of their class warfare shtick is a wonderful thing to watch. However, the leader of the country should be above this. Unfortunately Obama isn’t.

Ann said:I watched that video clip earlier today, and I liked the Obama I saw there. You could say he's beaten down, but there's fire there. It's the fire of pragmatism. I see a sensible and strong man.

Dan Henninger said:Barack Obama is a Class Warrior with every fiber of his being.... That was no mere statement. It was a class warrior's cry from the heart.

My conclusion is that Ann hasn't learned one damned thing about Bambi. His supporters have a power of self-deception that is far beyond the norm.

I watched that video clip earlier today, and I liked the Obama I saw there.

If you genuinely liked watching the President of the United States referring to the duly elected members of the opposing party as "bomb-throwers" and "terrorists" simply for opposing him, Professor... then you're scarcely in any position to determine what legitimately qualifies as "pragmatism," and what does not.

Just out of morbid curiousity, mind: what is the most pragmatic course of action for one to take with "terrorists," anyway... hmmmmm?

jr565: Spit on the graves of the Hitlers of the world. Not the wife of some guy who had an affair

Don't forget to include the "evil" people who don't show St Elizabeth the proper amount of sympathy. Lump them in with Hitler and spit on their graves too. Right?

Really, you fucking libtards post that you hope Ann dies a painful death and that people piss on her grave because... wait for it... she DARED note that Elizabeth's farewell didn't include an apology to her people for misleading them.

And then the very next day, you have the nerve to complain about civility?

I didn't see anything except a man who is so far under his pay grade that he makes me nostalgic for Clinton. For the record, I'm no fan of McCain either.

I did vote for Carter in 76, but then I grew up and started to pay attention better.

It will take an extremely strong leader in 2012 to start putting our country back together after this poser is booted to the side. He has been such a divider at home and foolish abroad.

Economic solutions? Simple, cut spending and let people keep their hard earned money. If we keep it, we spend it and all win. They can start by cutting programs that the Federal government has no business in to begin with. This is supposed to be the land of the free.

I disagree with your assessment, at several levels. At a fundamental level I disagree that pragmatism even has a "fire." Pragmatism has to stay calm, and keep a level head.

Secondly, I see nothing that changes my mind that he is and continues to be a dedicated advocate of class warfare who has a snooty disdain for the middle class.

Finally, your president (I didn't vote for him, so I'm not as starry-eyed as you) continues to demonstrate a woeful lack of appreciation for macroeconomics. Which goes with his class war orientation.

Finally, a gedanken experiment for you, Professor. Most economists agree that raising taxes during a recession risks prolonging, perhaps even a double-dip recession. If Barack Obama was a genuine pragmatist would he not have proposed extending the Bush tax cuts without the need for Republicans to push so strongly?

Henninger is right: Obama's reaction signals nothing more than another fight two years down the road. If businesses in this country aren't hiring due to skittish uncertainty about the economy, Obama did nothing to reassure them.

If businesses in this country aren't hiring due to skittish uncertainty about the economy, Obama did nothing to reassure them.

Thats whats so crazy about his approach. If he was forced(*) to compromise, at least take the "restore certainty for entrepreneurs" as a consolation prize. But Obama managed to lose both. The "rich" view him as hostile and looking for revenge.

(*) The silver lining in Obama's push for Obamacare - he got congress so wrapped up in it that they failed to take this issue up when they had the supermajority.

Fen wrote:Don't forget to include the "evil" people who don't show St Elizabeth the proper amount of sympathy. Lump them in with Hitler and spit on their graves too. Right?

Really, you fucking libtards post that you hope Ann dies a painful death and that people piss on her grave because... wait for it... she DARED note that Elizabeth's farewell didn't include an apology to her people for misleading them.

Who has the reading comprehension problem Fen?Where are you getting that I'm a libtard? If you look down at my posts in the same thread you'll note I dont have very kind words to say about OBama OR Carter, or Althouse for voting for either of them. ANd where are you getting that I'm saying we should piss on Ann Althouse's grave? I'm saying we shouln't piss on either of their graves, because whatever flaws they may have, they aren't serial murderers or haven't commited high crimes.

If you want civility for your heroes, show some civility for others as well. We're all flawed human beings.There ARE those for whom we should heap scorn on their deaths, when they die. But do you really think Elizabeth Edwards of all people is one of them? Give me a break. She's the wife of a two bit politiican who's son died, who's husband cheated on her and who had all of that hashed out on the national stage. He didn't even get to the white house, so remained a two bit politician. And she, after a long illness died of cancer. Give her a fucking break. And if you can't then don't expect anyone to give Rush LImbaugh a break when he dies for example. Don't expect civility when you can't give any yourself.

Now Grayson is a bastard. Who has literally no civility for others. I would expect if Rush Limbaugh died he would be unkind and an asshole and rather than showing respect would use his death as an opportunity to score political points. Which is why I don't like him. So, then if I think he is an asshole for being uncivil why would I emulate him and be uncivil about his passing? He got his. He was voted out of office. Good. Glad to see he got his ass handed to him, and hope he trips on the way out, because he's a douchebag. If he's dying of cancer, I hope he pulls through and doesn't needlessly suffer. And I wish all the best to his family. THere are a lot of assholes in the world, and very few of them do I wish painful deaths upon or whithold sympathy at their passing.Ted Bundy can rot. Alan Grayson, would still get my sympathy.

Agree, not a meltdown but this is not the posture you want to take at this point in time. Several points for BO:

- Master the short and sweet answer. He went on too long. If the base is pissed, don't give them more words (i.e. "sanctimonious") to be upset at.- If you're going to triangulate (and I wouldn't recommend it because you don't have that skill) then don't name call the other sides of the triangle (i.e. the "sanctimonious" liberals and the "hostage-taking" Republicans) otherwise you'll just unite them in opposition to YOU!-You're better at high minded rhetoric so again, short and sweet and high minded (i.e. "moving the nation forward", "adding to the opportunities for all Americans", whatever)

This episode demonstrates several things about BO that I could see prior to the election (and why I DIDN'T vote for him)

-clearly he has limited skill and understanding of the legislative process. I think he truly believes he got a "good deal". Just like healthcare, he's more interested in getting something that he can then claim is "victory". When you spend essentially only two years in the Senate, don't introduce or shepherd a bill through committee etc, and generally only vote "present" you'll have limited ability to achieve, let along assess, success-his sensibilities are still liberal and unfortunately he has the tendency to convince himself that he's meeting those sensibilities. Yea, this is good for the working man. He can't philosophically move to the "center" because he doesn't essentially understand the center, let alone the right.-he too easily demonizes those who fight him. During healthcare he met and collaborated with Health insurance companies, doctors etc but then later demonized them. He did the same with the bankers. And now he does it with his base AND the Republicans he cut a deal with.-he has a short term memory deficit. His healthcare bill wasn't about eliminating pre-existing conditions. He had that a year before the bill actually passed. He's forgotten his phrase "health insurance reform"

And Professor I agree this is exactly the Obama that ran during 2008. And I still wouldn't vote for him.

Like the "first snow" that didn't quite count as such chez Meadhouse, "pragmatist" here has taken on a strange new meaning. Hint: for most people, it conveys a cast of mind that guides one's actions and (often) values -- a "see what works and go with that" approach. It is not synonymous with bowing to a (hated) reality while claiming to be itching to take up the good fight against the hostage takers and bombthrowers. The latter suggests a crusader, someone devoted to the true faith who is looking for better weapons with which to resume a fight to the death.

If that's your idea of pragmatism (it seems to be Ann's), it's no surprise that your view of the world can become a bit skewed.

I don't get the ire of the liberals. I mean I understand their intense disagreement with the "Obama compromise". But the Dems have the votes and the President can suggest but he's not in the House nor the Senate.

So if they have the votes (and the Dems are still sizable majorities in both chambers)then they can vote against this proposal. Is this simply another example of the Dems demonizing the Republicans when their real problem is the moderate and Blue Dog democrats?

Let's stink up the country with set-asides, and naturalize the illegals to get their votes, and not enforce any laws we don't like, and write some best-selling children's books while we have the prestige of the office. Pragmatique!

Wouldn't this super-duper smart "pragmatist" have extended tax cuts for the middle class while he had 60 Democratic Senators and a large house majortity instead of getting rolled in a negotiation while his party was still controlling congress?

As an Obama supporter I'm pessimistic. Long term macroeconomic trends-- i.e., the permanent shrinking of the economy after the housing meltdown-- may sour the public on this leader irrevocably. And every leader after that. What the government can do against existential shifts is paltry.

I'm quite proud of the fact and I don't hesitate to pat myself on the back that I didn't vote for McGovern,Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obama. Pretty damn impressive line up of non-support, don't ya think?

The true pragmatist would take ownership of this kind of deal/ compromise/ triangulation. In disappointing the purists of his party, he'd evince his ideological independence, a kind of courageous integrity; he'd articulate why the pragmatic decision was (under the circumstances) a good one, a good for which he can henceforth claim responsibility, an achievement which he can claim as his own. In doing so, he projects strength.

Clinton was a master at this: welfare reform etc., but also little things like the "Sistah Soujah" episode. Whether or not (or to whatever extent) Clinton's triangulations were a reaction to Republican political power, or made on his own initiative because of his own convictions, by taking ownership & claiming responsibility Clinton always appeared strong and in control. Even if he disappointed the leftists in his party, did things they strongly disagreed with, he held on to their loyalty because he projected strength, competence, political mastery. He appeared larger than his political opponents-- even as (or precisely because) in triangulating, he was taking ownership of their ideas, thereby claiming authorship and credit for any good that came out of them. He appeared as the captain of the ship, negotiating various strong winds & currents.

Obama's fatal mistake, and I suspect what really triggered such extreme repugnance among the left, beyond the actual content of the deal, is that the presentation here is the inverse of the Clinton style. In O's attempt to demonize the GOP & deflect leftist criticism by calling the Republicans "hostage takers," the effect was the opposite of what he intended. What the metaphor literally spelled out conveys is: Don't blame me, I was forced into a corner and had to acquiesce to something that is wrong and goes against my convictions, I didn't want to but I had to give in to the terrorists to save the hostage. I negotiated with terrorists; so in the end (even if the hostage was saved) the terrorists won. O might as well have worn a "kick me I'm Carter" sign. He projected weakness. He may have painted the GOP as evil, but as so powerful that they forced his hand. The image conveyed is of O acting out of weakness, reactive, not as someone in control and in the driver's seat. The "hostage taker" metaphor effectively refudiates any responsibility, ownership, credit, authorship O might have taken for the deal (and thus any good that might come out of it) elsewhere in his speech.

And then, his rebuke to the purists in his party-- for their "sanctimony"-- also misses the mark that Clinton so deftly hit, because (as usual) O makes it all about HIM. In that analogy to earlier criticism over the public option, the emphasis falls not so much on "look at the overall good achieved at the cost of some pragmatic compromise" but rather "just like you did then, you're acting like ungrateful bitches, attacking me unfairly and minimizing the hugeness of my achievement, everything I struggled mightily to get for you." What he projects here is not ideological independence and integrity, so much as hurt feelings, narcissistic touchiness, indignation that his subjects are so ungrateful as to attack him, after everything he's done for them.

If the leftist outrage were just about the content/ substance of the deal, we'd have seen such outrage over previous compromises, extensions of W-ian policy, much more controversial than this. For all the leftist criticism of Clinton, he never lost the left's respect. What happened at this press conference, more than anything having to do with the content of the deal, something which has been building since the shellacking, is this: O has lost the left's respect. It won't help O to paint the Republicans as evil if in doing so he makes them look stronger than him.

So if they have the votes (and the Dems are still sizable majorities in both chambers)then they can vote against this proposal. Is this simply another example of the Dems demonizing the Republicans when their real problem is the moderate and Blue Dog democrats?

YES.

It is exactly this. The Dems have had the majority in the House (since 2006) and Senate but continue to act as if they are the powerless minority.

As if the Republicans and teh eveeel Booosh were the ones in charge of spending, budgeting and anything else, when it is THEY who are responsible for the legislation that has been destroying the economy. It is THEY who are responsible for the obstruction of legislation that would have mitigated the economic meltdown.

The make the problem and then blame the Republicans.

The media is also culpable because they perpetuate the lie, the myth, that somehow the true minority party were the ones in charge instead of the Democrats who have been calling the shots for the last 4 years.

THIS is going to be Obama's meme as well.

He is going to say. "See how pragmatic (barf) I am? How "I" have compromised with the eveeel Republicans."

THEN when he sabotages the compromise with the backdoor resolutions, regulations etc......the Democrats will try to blame the Republicans when 2012 rolls around.

The Democrats do NOT care about the economy. They do NOT care about you.

They DO care about keeping in power and if it means many more years of high unemployment, tanking economy to do it......they just don't FUCKING care.

Yup, voted my first time in '76 and have been married since '77. Don't you know not to believe every picture you see on the internet? I prefer to think of it as late adolescence rather than middle age since I have pretty much refused to grow up.

Obama spent two railing against Bush just to extend Bush's tax rate cuts. He just proved Bush right all along, but Bush is the idiot.

Obama is a moron. He basically did the dumbest thing of all, he extend the cuts for two years which will have no real effect since no one in their right mind will invest with such a short horizon. Either extend the cut for 7 or 8 years so investors and businessmen can plan reasonably timed investments or stuck to his guns on the tax issue. It would not help the economy had he done so but investors more than anything can't tolerate uncertainty. The economy will eventually recover despite the economic imbecility of the democrats so he accomplished nothing except to make himself look like a whinny little bitch.

He had two years with a bullet proof congress to get this and the rest of his agenda through and he blew it.

He is arrogant and stupid and fortunately for the nation grossly incompetent. He was handed a shit sandwich by the republicans who have no actual power in this congress and all he held out for was to be allowed to have mustard and mayo on the sandwich.

And this is the man according to the good professor is now finally becoming the man she voted for? Put down the bong, it's bad for your health. I can understand voting for Carter in 76 (don't blame me, I voted for Ford) but how could any sane person have voted for Carter in 80? Talk about back ass-wards voting!